Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mansoor Ali - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 69 of 2026
Decided On : 05-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Pankaj Mehta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Adv. General.

Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Bail in NDPS case - Recovery of intermediate quantity (12.5 grams heroin) - Accused in custody for over one year - Trial protracted with 16 out of 18 witnesses examined - Prior bail application dismissed - Successive bail application lies only on material change in circumstances, such as violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Pre-trial detention unjustified given quantity and trial delay - Criminal antecedents not bar to bail on long incarceration - Bail granted subject to conditions including surety bonds, no witness intimidation, attendance at trial. (Paras 8-15, 26-28)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Fundamental right implicit in life and liberty - Inordinate delay in trial completion infringes Article 21 - State cannot oppose bail on ground of offence seriousness if speedy trial not provided - Accused presumed innocent till convicted - Long detention without expeditious trial entitles bail even in stringent laws. (Paras 16-25)

Facts of the case:
Accused apprehended during patrolling on basis of secret information, carry bag searched yielding 12.5 grams heroin confirmed by forensic analysis. Arrested same day, charge sheet filed within two months. Trial ongoing with 16 witnesses examined, two summoned. Prior bail dismissed; another FIR registered under NDPS.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; accused directed to be released on bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions; observations not to affect merits.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail without change in circumstances; violation of speedy trial due to protracted trial and long custody; effect of antecedents and intermediate quantity on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive bail requires substantial change like trial delay infringing speedy trial right; for small quantities, detention beyond substantial period disproportionate; precedents mandate bail on Article 21 violation despite prior rejection and antecedents.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner arrested with 12.5g heroin under ndps. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue speedy trial and prior bail dismissal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. successive bail requires substantial change in circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. intermediate quantity; prolonged pretrial detention unjustified. (Para 14 , 15)
5. speedy trial fundamental right; delay justifies bail. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. trial delay violates article 21 speedy trial right. (Para 26)
7. antecedents irrelevant for long incarceration bail. (Para 27)
8. bail granted subject to conditions and limitations. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 10 of 2025, dated 18.1.2025, registered at Police Station, Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution's story, the police apprehended the petitioner when they were on patrolling duty on 18.1.2025 based on secret information and recovered 12.5 grams of heroin. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which is violative of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 18.01.2025. They received a secret information at 2:15 pm that Mansoor Ali (the present petitioner) was selling heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered during his search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Paonta Sahib. The police reached the spot, indicated in the information, along with one Kashmir Singh. The petitioner was found with a carry bag. He identified himself as Mansoor Ali. The police searched the carry bag and recovered 12.5 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, for analysis, and as per the result of the analysis, it was found to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (heroin). The police filed the charge sheet on 17.03.2025. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, out of whom 16 have been examined. The remaining witnesses were summoned for 27.1.2026. An FIR No. 374 of 2023, dated 19.02.2023 was registered against the petitioner in the Police Station Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offences if released on bail. The prosecution has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner on 17.3.2025. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Pankaj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Pankaj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 12.5 grams of heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 18.1.2025, and he has remained in prison for more than one year. The prosecution failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in circumstances. The p